1. Field of Invention
The present invention relates generally to composite building elements with their attendant mounting systems, and more particularly to those building elements composing a group of wall facing and floor covering elements such as face bricks, cut stone and floor tile that are significantly lighter in weight than the more traditional non-composite building elements such as standard face brick, cut stone or floor tile, exhibits complete closure to the elements of weather, has improved insulating qualities, has improved structural attachment when compared to current lightweight face brick and cut stone, has simpler installation procedures, and which utilizes fewer and simpler ancillary items to complete the installation.
2. Description of Prior Art
Face brick, cut stone and/or floor tile, manufactured of materials which are permanent and non-deteriorating such as fired clay or concrete or natural stone, are installed as wall facing and floor covering materials world wide. Reasons for such acceptance include proven longevity, reasonable and permanent closure and resistance to the elements of weather, incombustibility and general appreciation of the styles and colors available which enhance the individual structures on which the face brick, cut stone and/or floor tile is installed. However, the preconception of the weight, necessity of skilled labor for installation and cost of the installed face brick, cut stone and/or floor tile system have been primary reasons for not using or even considering usage of brick, cut stone and/or floor tile except those regions where usage is presumed as normal or preferred, or where style and visual effect have been primary considerations. Another common preconception is that face brick, cut stone and/or floor tile cannot be installed on an exiting interior wall or floor without significant structural modifications because of the weight of the product. Still another preconception is that only professional masons are capable of proper installation of the material. Each of these preconceptions has some element of truth, but, as is often the case with preconceptions in general, these elements of truth have been exaggerated. Indeed, many reject the option of installing a wall faced with brick and/or cut stone or a floor covered with tile, even to the point of non-consideration, because of these preconceptions.
Inventors and the face brick, cut stone and/or floor tile manufacturing and installation industry have variously tried to meet these objections. Among the prior art generated by these attempts have been:
a. WEIGHT The problem of weight has been addressed with two general approaches:
1. Design. Prior art in the brick industry has been concentrated on decreasing the volume of material used in the manufacturing of each individual brick thereby reducing their attendant weight. The method of extruding holes parallel with respect to the face of the brick is universally known as prior art. The minimum weight achieved by this means, while maintaining sufficient strengths, has remained virtually constant for centuries. This has not lessened the conception of the wall facing product as being too heavy for many uses. Teachings include that by Gerald T. Francis in U.S. Pat. No. 4,407,104 (1983), which has, as the primary focus, thin bricks adhesively attached to an extruded polystyrene foam backing panel and each panel joined to the wall with clips which protrude through the joints in the foam panel to provide mechanical attachment to the brick joint mortar subsequently applied. The problem common with adhesives is still extant with this teaching. In addition, in order to achieve a finished wall surface, the mortar joints must be filled manually.
Another teaching is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,526,630 issued to Steven R. Francis et al (1996) wherein they utilize a formed panel with channels which accept preformed thin brick tiles frictionally inserted into said channels. There is an additional device which protrudes from the outer surface of the underlying panel into a space between the individual brick tiles. Which device acts as a mechanical attachment of the panel to the wall and to form positive attachment to brick joint mortar subsequently applied. This teaches a frictional fit of the individual thin brick tiles to the underlying panel which overcomes the adhesive problem, but introduces another problem of depending primarily on the thin mortar joints for stability of the wall facing. If struck by blowing or thrown objects on a portion of the facing which does not happen to be where there is located a mechanical stabilizer tied to the wall surface underneath, and since there is no other mechanical support for the brick except through said thin mortar joints, it is likely that the joint would be fractured thereby releasing the thin brick tile from its position.
Still another teaching is contained in U.S. Pat. No. 4,349,588 issued to Henry Schiffer (1982) where a monolific layer of modified cementious mortar is troweled onto an existing surface, subsequently scored, sealed and grouted to appear like brick or cut stone. The disadvantage of this teaching is that it is very labor intensive, requires a multitude of separate steps to accomplish, doesn't resist cracking because of it's monolific coating, requires someone skilled in the art to install and would be difficult to approach a visual replica of the material that it attempts to emulate.
2. Materials. Various materials or combinations of materials have been utilized to achieve a lighter weight brick or cut stone. A common method has been taught by G. L. Bachner in U.S. Pat. No. 3,518,799 (1970) and S. C. Volent in U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,555,757 and 3,949,037 (1967 and 1976 respectively) is to utilize a brick, simulated or real, either cut, pressed or extruded to a thickness of about one-half inch (1/2") or less and then attaching it to the structure by utilizing adhesives. This has not been successful, especially on exterior surfaces because the adhesives are not good enough to provide permanent attachment and because the underlying surfaces must be absolutely sound, planer and without any presence of moisture behind or in them. A variation of this concept is taught by James D. O'Leary in U.S. Pat. No. 3,740,911 (1973) where the thin bricks are adhesively bonded using a "resin adhesive" to a substrate which is subsequently attached mechanically to the wall. A further variation of these attempts is taught by Cromrich et al in U.S. Pat. No. 4,963,305 where a light weight, insulating facing brick is provided with a first outer layer formed from conventional bricking clay and a second insulative layer formed from a combination of clay and expanded vermiculite.
Although these approaches do indeed result in a lightweight or lighter weight wall facing material, other conceptual and actual problems arise in their usage. For instance, the current state of the art in the plastics industry does not allow for a material that is not attacked by Ultra-Violet (UV) rays from the sun in the long term, thereby obviating any possibility of true permanence as a wall facing product when compared to concrete or clay face brick, cut stone and/or floor tile. Additionally, plastics are expensive and do not present a visual equality to the natural materials which they seek to emulate--they look "plastic". The dual composite teaching must still utilize expensive and increasingly difficult to find skilled masons to accomplish installation. In the concrete brick industry, various attempts have been made to utilize lighter weight materials, such as expanded shale or clay, to replace some of the normal graded sand as aggregate in the concrete mix. The resulting brick weighs less (about two-thirds the weight) than a normal aggregate mix, but is not as strong and is more absorbent, thereby making it more difficult to use.
b. COST Prior art will be discussed in two parts; initial cost and manufacturing.
1. Initial costs of concrete brick, cut stone and/or floor tile are competitive. However, the costs of re-bracing an existing structure compel many to reject the use of brick, tile and/or stone to re-face the walls or floors (interior or exterior) of their home. Also, masons required to lay common brick, floor tile and/or cut stone who are skilled workers who demand high wages.
2. The capital costs to install a manufacturing facility for the extrusion or molding of concrete face brick, floor tile and/or cut stone are considerable. A significant portion of the cost is in the purchase of the forms on which the brick, tile or stone are extruded. Additionally, if more than one size of brick, tile or stone is desired to be produced, the additional forms on which to extrude that size must be purchased. Variations in thickness or any other dimension are impossible because of the shape imposed, in major part, by the forms and by thicknesses necessary to achieve adequate installed strengths. The weight of the finished product limits the effective reasonable shipping radius, limiting the market area to about a 200 mile radius from the manufacturing facility.